And what is a "real" threat? Hint: "real" discounts "what ifs..." For example, What if China sells missiles to Bermuda is not a "real" threat.

Is there another country on earth that can match our military might?

Is there another country on earth that has the potential to successfully invade NA?

Who provides a greater threat to whom? The U.S. to Iran or Iran to the U.S.? Does Iran have troops along our borders and threaten us with invasion or bombing, as we do to them?

If attitude is my problem, perspective is yours. Step back to a neutral corner and try a new one on for size, if even for a moment.

To my knowledge, China has not yet flown an airliner into any office building in America nor has it dynamited any of our embassies overseas.

I think we are one-up on them in that score.

Show me the neutral corner, when you find it.

B

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thatís what I intend to reverse.

Are you telling me every fucked up bully in the world is entitled to have nukes just because he is scared of the big bad US?

Hugo Chavez, are you listening?

yes, becase the usa is the only criminal that gas used nukes. What gives us the right to dictate who can and who can;t have "
them. Look at N.Korea, Pakistan,and India that basically showed American the middle finger and still developed them and are now proud nuclear states. I bet Iran will be successful

yes, becase the usa is the only criminal that gas used nukes. What gives us the right to dictate who can and who can;t have "
them. ...

Self preservation.

B

The biggest problems we are facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all and thatís what I intend to reverse.

You're starting to sound like a recording Shane, oblivious to simple and reasoned explanations. For the 234th time, no one here is suggesting that we not use our military to defend ourselves and secure our interests. What do you find so difficult about that? And why can't you separate that concept from that of an unprovoked invasion of Iraq, or U.S. sanctioned political slaughters such as the Kwangju Massacre? And why can't you understand the difference between non-intervention and isolationism? I'm sure I've explained all this before in some detail, the redundancy is becoming a bit tiresome.

Yes, just as tiresome as those who cannot identify independent thought from the hatred of Bush.

C-If our intended goal in this age is the establishment of a caliphate in the manner of the Prophet and if we expect to establish its state predominantly-according to how it appears to us-in the heart of the Islamic world, then your efforts and sacrifices-God permitting-are a large step directly towards that goal.

So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals:

3 The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq.

The second stage: Establish an Islamic authority or amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a caliphate- over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq, i.e., in Sunni areas, is in order to fill the void stemming from the departure of the Americans, immediately upon their exit and before un-Islamic forces attempt to fill this void, whether those whom the Americans will leave behind them, or those among the un-Islamic forces who will try to jump at taking power.

There is no doubt that this amirate will enter into a fierce struggle with the foreign infidel forces, and those supporting them among the local forces, to put it in a state of constant preoccupation with defending itself, to make it impossible for it to establish a stable state which could proclaim a caliphate, and to keep the Jihadist groups in a constant state of war, until these forces find a chance to annihilate them.

The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq.

The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.

My raising this idea-I don't claim that it's infallible-is only to stress something extremely important. And it is that the mujahedeen must not have their mission end with the expulsion of the Americans from Iraq, and then lay down their weapons, and silence the fighting zeal. We will return to having the secularists and traitors holding sway over us. Instead, their ongoing mission is to establish an Islamic state, and defend it, and for every generation to hand over the banner to the one after it until the Hour of Resurrection.

If the matter is thus, we must contemplate our affairs carefully, so that we are not robbed of the spoils, and our brothers did not die, so that others can reap the fruits of their labor.

D-If we look at the two short-term goals, which are removing the Americans and establishing an Islamic amirate in Iraq, or a caliphate if possible, then, we will see that the strongest weapon which the mujahedeen enjoy - after the help and granting of success by God - is popular support from the Muslim masses in Iraq, and the surrounding Muslim countries.

So, we must maintain this support as best we can, and we should strive to increase it, on the condition that striving for that support does not lead to any concession in the laws of the Sharia.

So you are saying these people have no opposition within their own societies? Oh, wait a minute, they don't - you guys killed them all. I remember your constant cheerleading for the destruction of the Baath Party, yet now that they are gone, Iraq is a vacuum for these nuts. Great job. Tell me, if you think America is the bullwark against these people, where are the 450,000 troops going to come from to do something about it? Isn't this exactly what happened here: we installed an Islamic Constitution in Iraq after destroying the secular government, and became Al Queda's biggest recruiter as we totally clusterfucked everything and anything, and now we have an uncontrollable mess on our hands where the men who wrote the above have emerged as the winners?

Recall that earlier generations faced down fascism and communism not just with missiles and tanks, but with sturdy alliances and enduring convictions. They understood that our power alone cannot protect us, nor does it entitle us to do as we please. Instead, they knew that our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.

You aren't alone in confusing legitimate criticism of bad behavior as hatred. I wouldn't call that independent thought, so don't flatter yourself.

Bad behavior? Criticism? If you even think a possibility of virtue might exist within the criticized structure you are immediately labled a sympathizer and a full supporter of everything, thus you must be attacked. No that is not independent thought, and no your argument doesn't flatter yourself.